The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant, as indicated in the facts charged in the instant case, did not administer cambacopon (hereinafter “copon”), and that the Defendant’s detection of copon in the outcome of appraisal on the Defendant’s copon was due to the Defendant’s taking of, or making the copon copon copher in the Republic of Korea, including the copter’s ingredients, or that the copon copher in which the copon was written (hereinafter “copon copon”).

Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

(2) The defendant's written opinion submitted after the lapse of the period for submitting the written reason for appeal shall be determined within the scope of supplement to the grounds for appeal, and no separate decision shall be made as to the defendant's assertion of unreasonable sentencing, which is not entirely written in the written reason for appeal).

First of all, as to the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant was included in philophones on a balphical medicine, even if the Defendant used double-domestic balphy, including pentine ingredients, it cannot be said that the balphy is detected on the part of the balphoids in accordance with the result of the inquiry and reply by the National Scientific Investigation Agency of this Court on the fact-finding to the National Scientific Investigation Agency of the above drugs.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

Next, the Defendant asserts to the effect that he was found to have detected scopon components by scopon, so comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, it can be sufficiently recognized that the Defendant himself administered scopon, and the Defendant was “scopon mulberry.”